Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2016 Aug;26(8):2520-8.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4074-8. Epub 2015 Nov 11.

Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain

Laia Domingo  1   2 , Solveig Hofvind  3   4 , Rebecca A Hubbard  5 , Marta Román  3   6 , David Benkeser  7 , Maria Sala  1   2 , Xavier Castells  8   9
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain

Laia Domingo et al. Eur Radiol. 2016 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: To compare accuracy measures for mammographic screening in Norway, Spain, and the US.

Methods: Information from women aged 50-69 years who underwent mammographic screening 1996-2009 in the US (898,418 women), Norway (527,464), and Spain (517,317) was included. Screen-detected cancer, interval cancer, and the false-positive rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) for recalls (PPV-1), PPV for biopsies (PPV-2), 1/PPV-1 and 1/PPV-2 were computed for each country. Analyses were stratified by age, screening history, time since last screening, calendar year, and mammography modality.

Results: The rate of screen-detected cancers was 4.5, 5.5, and 4.0 per 1000 screening exams in the US, Norway, and Spain respectively. The highest sensitivity and lowest specificity were reported in the US (83.1 % and 91.3 %, respectively), followed by Spain (79.0 % and 96.2 %) and Norway (75.5 % and 97.1 %). In Norway, Spain and the US, PPV-1 was 16.4 %, 9.8 %, and 4.9 %, and PPV-2 was 39.4 %, 38.9 %, and 25.9 %, respectively. The number of women needed to recall to detect one cancer was 20.3, 6.1, and 10.2 in the US, Norway, and Spain, respectively.

Conclusions: Differences were found across countries, suggesting that opportunistic screening may translate into higher sensitivity at the cost of lower specificity and PPV.

Key points: • Positive predictive value is higher in population-based screening programmes in Spain and Norway. • Opportunistic mammography screening in the US has lower positive predictive value. • Screening settings in the US translate into higher sensitivity and lower specificity. • The clinical burden may be higher for women screened opportunistically.

Keywords: Mammographic screening; Positive predictive value; Sensitivity; Specificity; Variability.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Perry N. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth. Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, editors. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006. - PubMed
    1. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement (2009). Ann Intern Med 151:716–236 - PubMed
    1. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:141–69. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1082–1091. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn224. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hofvind S, Geller BM, Skelly J, Vacek PM. Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e1226–e1232. doi: 10.1259/bjr/15168178. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources